Higher Costs Built Into EPA Proposal

The EPA fully recognizes that its proposal to cut CO2 emissions 30% will increase the cost of electricity to consumers and industry.

There are several places within the EPA regulations that recognize that costs will increase (1).

There can be no question that the EPA regulations will increase the cost of electricity for consumers and industry.

Several places in the proposed regulations, the EPA says: “We view these estimated costs as reasonable.” In fact, the EPA proposal includes the word “reasonable” over 90 times.

These “reasonable cost increases” are a hidden tax.

The EPA claims that electricity costs will decline and save consumers and industry money, because energy savings will lower electricity usage. What the EPA didn’t say was that many of the methods for reducing the use of electricity require a large upfront investment.

For example, replacing all the windows in a moderately sized home will cost around $25,000 and only save small amounts of electricity annually.

Here’s what DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) says about triple pane windows it has used in its studies.

“It would take 23 to 55 years to save enough on a utility bill to cover the higher cost of the windows, based on national electricity costs.”

Adding insulation may or may not be economically worthwhile. Forcing people to adjust their thermostats may save electricity, but at the detriment to comfort and enjoyable living … and possibly the health of the elderly and sick.

These are a few of the possible effects of demand reductions

The EPA overlooks the investment and cost to living standards when it claims that consumers and industry will save money because of these proposed new regulations.

The EPA and this administration try to overlook the negative aspects of these regulations because they are intent on cutting CO2 emissions. But as shown in other articles, these regulations won’t cut CO2 emissions worldwide, and will therefore, have no effect on global warming. See The Camels Nose.

This raises the question, why should the United States suffer the consequences of trying to cut CO2 emissions when it will cost Americans money to do so? … While achieving nothing.

The EPA, in its proposal, says, that electricity costs, on average, will only increase by 6% … and that the costs are reasonable.

But why should the government impose this hidden tax on Americans? Why is any increase in costs reasonable?

Any tax is bound to hurt the economy, and cost jobs, while hurting American’s standard of living.

The EPA quotes the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) in its proposed regulations, to justify its demand side and energy efficiency proposals.

But the ACEEE has extreme views on this subject.

For example, an ACEEE report determined the United States lagged behind China for energy efficiencies in buildings.

In its report, the residential sector of the United States scored a 1 (nearly the worst possible rating), while China scored a 5 (best possible rating). See Energy Efficiency Common Sense for more information about the ACEEE.

Air-conditioning units and clothes hanging to dry. Photo by Dears
Air-conditioning units and clothes hanging to dry. Photo by Dears

How can any legitimate organization declare that the residential sector in China is more energy efficient than in the United States?

It’s ludicrous, yet the EPA uses the ACEEE as an example when it talks about demand side savings and energy efficiency.

The EPA’s proposed regulations are all pain and no gain … and harms Americans.

Note:

  1. The EPA’s proposed regulations for cutting CO2 emissions 30% by 2030 can be seen at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf

* * * * * *

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.
If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.
To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.
© Power For USA, 2010 – 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

0 Replies to “Higher Costs Built Into EPA Proposal”

    • They may still do that, at the state level when states develop their plans in accordance with the EPA’s 4 point program. They probably won’t since that would be too obvious and have too direct an impact on people. All this is being done because most people don’t have a clue about what’s going on.
      Good to hear from you.

  1. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  2. Pingback: The War on Methane and Freedom | Power For USA

  3. Pingback: The War On Methane And Freedom | EPA Abuse

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*